Violence against Women - Case Study Example

PART I Violence against women is considered an important social dilemma because about quarter of all women in the United States continuously “experience rape, physical assault and stalking” (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000:1). From Mills’ perspective deconstructing every phenomenon on “personal trouble” and “public issue,” violence against women constitutes simultaneously a tragedy of an individual and family (personal trouble) and a tragedy of whole society (public issue). From the critical perspective, the majority of sociological studies recognizes that violence against women is not a singular phenomenon but, rather, a term used to refer to a variety of conditions that differ in context. Depending on family and relationship history forms of violence differ by cause, etiology, manifestation, and impact. Although an act of violence, a “hit,” directed at a current or former intimate partner may appropriately be labeled “intimate partner violence,” as Sue Osthoff explained, “a hit is not a hit. Context matters. A lot. A whole lot” (2002:1540). Not all “hits” are created equal. In recent years, and increasingly, practitioners, researchers, and advocates, are considering distinctions among types of violence and specifically re-asserting and clarifying violence as a particular dynamic. From the perspective of Mill’s personal trouble, violence is characterized by a systemic pattern of behavior (rather than isolated acts of violence) that establishes dominance over another person typically through intimidation, coercion, isolation, and terror-inducing violence and threats of violence (Dutton & Goodman, 2005:748). Power and control are central as motives for and impact of violence. The language of “coercive control” or “coercion” has also been used to describe the phenomenon of violence (Dutton & Goodman, 2005:748). Kelly and Johnson (2008) described coercive controlling violence (a concept previously labeled patriarchal terrorism and then intimate terrorism ) as “emotionally abusive intimidation, coercion, and control coupled with physical violence against partners” (Kelly & Johnson, 2008:478). Violence as “a personal trouble” is most often chracterized with battering, a term that has been used in some cases as a synonym for any violence against an intimate partner, regardless of context. Battering may, and typically does, include distinct acts of violence, however not all acts of violence are a component of battering (Osthoff, 2002:1535). Non-battering violence might include physical acts that look similar to those used by batterers and might have similar physical impacts, but the meaning, effect, and context of the violence does not have the same coercive and threatening power. Non-battering violence includes violence resulting from conflict or fighting escalation within a family and that used in self-defense, described in Johnson’s terms as situational couple violence (Kelly & Johnson, 2008:477). From the perspective of “personal trouble,” violence against women should be analyzed in terms of interaction between a male and a female, which is unique for every family. An interactionist approach to gender focuses on the social context within which interactions between individuals take place and gender as an outcome of social behaviors - “doing gender.” The idea is that gender is produced, and reproduced, within a social context. This perspective argues that men use violence when their masculinity (dominance) is threatened. According to Vandello et al, there is a “preoccupation” among males with “the precarious nature of manhood” leading men to feel the need to “prove [their] manhood” sometimes through physical aggression (2008:1335). Males may turn to violence to demonstrate their masculinity when other options for doing so are unavailable. Vandello and colleagues maintain that “many acts of male aggression are best understood as responses to anxiety about living up to standards of masculinity and continual pressure to prove oneself (2008:1335). The precariousness of gender status, and anxiety about threats to gender status, have not been found to hold true for females - absolving women of the need to prove their womanhood (Vandello et al., 2008). Violence against women exists within this culture of gender norms and expectations. Based on the interactionist perspective, if a woman is no longer in a relationship with the male and she does not live with him (especially if they formerly lived together), the male partner’s dominance is threatened (she has increased freedom) suggesting an increased risk of violence. Masculinity and dominance may also be threatened if the woman herself uses or has used violence against her male partner. Victimization is not considered to be masculine and dominance may be thwarted through victimization. If relationship is current, the couple lives together, and the two individuals have children in common, the male might have a greater sense of masculinity (dominance) and, therefore, feel a decreased need to use violence. However, living together and/or having children in common may increase access, therefore increasing risk of violence. Analyzing the phenomenon of violence against women from Mill’s “public issue” perspective, it is necessary to understand that statistically male violence against women is the leading cause of serious injury for women in the United States. As Koss et al points out one in three women in this country will be physically assaulted at some point during their lifetime by a partner or ex-partner, resulting in figures of 2 to 3 million women every year (Koss et al, 1994:25). Domestic violence against women has been associated with a host of adverse psychological consequences for women, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Women also report physical effects, including headaches, muscle aches, gastrointestinal distress, vaginal infections, pregnancy-related problems, and HIV (Koss et al, 1994). In addition to the tremendous psychological and physical impacts of abuse, there are economic burdens as well, which makes violence against women an accute societal dilemma. Some women are economically dependent on their partners, and as such, may face many obstacles in their attempts to prevent future victimization. For some women, the only way to achieve such an outcome is to separate from their abusive partners. But, if women are unable to support themselves, they will be less likely to leave (Koss et al, 1994). Knowing this to be the case, some batterers do not allow their partners to work outside the home. Others bum textbooks to prevent women from attending school. For women who actually separate from their partners, it may be difficult for them to continue the same standard of living. With only their income, women may have to move to substandard housing; they may also end up without housing. This intersection of violence, economic status and housing reflects the double burden that women face both as victims of domestic violence and as potential “members” of a growing population of low-income single mothers who are currently homeless. PART II To explains and analyze the effectiveness of public policy solutions to violence against women and their differences four formal systems are chosen for their relevance in the lives of women: the police, the courts, welfare, and battered women’s shelters. From Mill’s perspective, public policy exhibits different approaches to violence against women depending on whether the latter represents “public issue” or “personal trouble.” The difference becomes particularly evident in the following analysis of formal systems. The main problems with public policies which aim to resolve the issue of violence against women result from approach collision occurring within policy instruments: once public policy attempts to treat the problem as a “personal trouble” it becomes ineffective. The police have been widely criticized as a public policy, though this system provides necessary services to insure women’s safety. Courts offer women protection from their batterers through sanctions (i.e., probation, mandatory treatment programs, and jail time) and stay away orders. The welfare system assists women in becoming financially resettled. Finally, shelters offer women an important service by giving them a place to stay while they are in crisis. Walker (1979) proposed that battered women become so overwhelmed by the abuse, as well as feeling that they have no control in their lives, that they begin showing signs of “learned helplessness.” In these cases, women cannot ask for help because they simply do not have the strength. However, Gondolf and Fisher (1988) formulated a “survivor theory” to contrast the concept of “learned helplessness.” In a study with 6,612 battered women, Gondolf and Fisher (1988) reported that a majority had indeed sought help from the police, a shelter, or a lawyer. Moreover, Hutchison and Hirsehel (1998:448) found that in a sample of 419 women, less than 2% of the women had not sought any help. Rather, 39% had used two to three different sources and 26% had used four to five different sources (Hutchison and Hirsehel, 1998:449). Most sought legal over social help (e.g., calling the police vs. going to a shelter). Furthermore, in a review of 12 studies, Gordon (1996) reported that the criminal justice system was the most widely used service, followed by social service agencies, medical services, psychological and crisis counseling, various support groups, and women’s shelters. Although the police may be among the most frequently contacted, battered women also report them to be the least helpful. If formal agencies are not helpful, then women may have no other choice but to try to cope on their own. An example from the welfare system illustrates how a lack of system response can trap women in abusive relationships. The modern welfare laws (i.e., Temporary Aid to Needy Families) are making it increasingly difficult for women in shelters to get financial assistance. In most cases, women cannot get an appointment with a caseworker for 6 to 8 weeks. This timetable is too long for women as the maximum shelter stay is usually only 30 days. Without financial assistance women may be forced to return to the abusive relationship. As a part of public policy treating violence against women as a “public issue”, the criminal justice system has been criticized in literature for two types of responses: 1) poor treatment of women, and 2) an inability to protect women. Both types of responses could influence a woman’s decision about whether to involve the criminal justice system in future incidents of violence, as well as her ability to stop the abuse. If she cannot stop the abuse while remaining in her current residence, she may be forced to relocate where the batterer cannot find her and her children. Often, relocation is associated with homelessness as women are unable to find affordable housing. The first criticism (i.e., poor treatment of women) stems from women who report being revictimized by the police, prosecutors, and judges who hear their complaints. In a study of 50 battered women, Erez and Belknap (1998:262) found that 50% of women reported that the police minimized the extent of their injuries, 33% encountered objectionable questions and comments by the judge, and 51% reported that the prosecutors asked them questions about whether they provoked the abuse. From this perspective, it is evident that public policy represented through the criminal justice system exhibits the tendency to treat violence against women as a “personal trouble” issue. The second criticism (i.e., inability to protect women) may be suggestive of why women do not call the police, and for those who do, why they do not call a second time. Even if women do call the police or take out a temporary protection order, they are not always protected from their abusers; women constantly report that temporary protection orders are not worth the paper they are written on. For example, if a batterer violates the order, a woman is still at the mercy of police officers that respond to the call, prosecutors who decides whether or not to prosecute, and judges who sentence the batterer. In these cases, women may seek help initially from the criminal justice system, but if they are not satisfied with the response, they may not call the police again. The importance of judicial response cannot be overstated as in many cases, the second contact (after law enforcement) that a woman has with the criminal justice system is with the magistrate court. Women who file for temporary restraining orders against their partners must describe their experiences of abuse, and the magistrate court judge decides whether or not to issue a temporary protection order (TPO). In some instances this contact is traumatic for women who are forced to talk in an open courtroom about the physical, psychological, and sexual abuse they have endured. In addition, judges' actions may serve to revictimize women. First, judges may turn down a woman's petition for a TPO. Second, even if the judge grants the TPO, some judges refuse to evict the batterer. Once again, this public policy aims to approach the dilemma as to a “personal trouble,” not a “public issue.” After separation, battered women may be forced to the welfare office to try to get re-established. In fact, domestic violence affects 33% to 67% of women on welfare (Raphael, 1999:455). Benefits offered by the welfare system during this time are critical, for without them, women would not otherwise have enough money to buy food or pay rent. From practical perspective, this public policy targets the issue of violence against women as a “public one.” Statistics point to the necessity for the welfare system to provide an economic safety net to low-income battered women. However, the majority of women involved with the Department of Social Services described it as “not at all helpful.” Using qualitative methods, Newman interviewed 7 battered women about their experiences with social welfare agencies. One woman spoke of her experiences with the welfare system, “There are lots of problems getting assistance - it's hurry up and wait. You hurry up to get there and then you wait. A good day is when you brought the right stuff to the right agency and you were able to visit two agencies in one day” (1993:111). Regarding the importance of caseworkers’ knowledge of domestic violence and how the lack of knowledge could hinder battered women from receiving necessary resources, one woman stated “The lady at the food stamp office wanted information on my husband. She said I had to count his income cause we were still married. She didn’t understand ... she just wouldn't listen” (Newman (1993:111). Welfare workers may also have attitudes that limit women’s benefits, including beliefs about who should and should not receive services. The “client/worker cultural mismatch” theory, supposes that caseworkers see themselves as compassionate and giving; in return, they expect that clients should be grateful for the help received. When clients do not show the proper respect for services received, caseworkers challenge and belittle them, question their ability to work and their honesty about being homeless, and imply that they are not deserving of benefits. Additional studies have shown that women who do not fit the preferred stereotype (e.g., passive, grateful) may have a difficult time getting help from social service agencies. With such a response, it is little wonder that women who are forced to go to the welfare office for financial help after separating from their abusers do so with great reluctance. Shelters, as public policy instuments, can also provide a safety net to battered women after separation. Most offer women temporary shelter, support groups, legal assistance, and children’s programs. However, many shelters are still without adequate funding. To ensure that shelters did not close, directors across the country sought funding from various outside sources. With this funding came regulations as to how the shelters should use the money and whom they should serve. As a result, many shelters became less political and more hierarchical, with agency staff placing more limits on who was eligible for shelter, turning this way from instruments of public policy to instuments combatting “personal troubles.” For instance, women who planned to return to their batterers, who had multiple problems such as alcohol addiction or homelessness, and women of color were often excluded from shelter services. Donnelly and her colleagues conducted a study with directors at battered women's shelters receiving state funding in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi and found that African American women were most often mentioned as underserved by the shelters. One White director said “The majority of the people we serve are White ... It’s almost like the Black take care of their own better. Either that, or they're just more used to it, tolerate it longer, or don't see it as battering” (Donnelly 1999:724). Many researchers suggest that these stereotypes are precisely what keep African American women in violent situations. It also explains why, although low-income African American and White women experience similar rates of violence, African American women do not seek assistance from shelters as often as White battered women. REFERENCES Donnelly, D.A., Cook, K.J., & Wilson, L.A. (1999). Provision and exclusion: The dual face of services to battered women in three deep South states. Violence Against Women, 5(7), 710-741. Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743-756. Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women's assessment of the criminal processing system's responses. Violence and Victims, 13(3), 251-268. Gordon, J.S. (1996). Community services for abused women: A review of perceived usefulness and efficacy. Journal of Family Violence, 11(4), 315-329 Gondolf, E.W., & Fisher, E.R. (1988). Battered women as survivors: An alternative to treating learned helplessness. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books Hutchison, I.W., & Hirschel, J.D. (1998). Abused women: Help-seeking strategies and police utilization. Violence Against Women, 4(A), 436-456 Newman, K.D. (1993). Giving up: Shelter experiences of battered women. Public Health Nursing, 70(2), 108-113. Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476-499. Koss, M.P., Goodman, L.A., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L.F., Keita, G.P., & Russo, N.F. (1994). No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Osthoff, S. (2002). But, Gertrude, I beg to differ, a hit is not a hit is not a hit: When battered women are arrested for assaulting their partners. Violence Against Women, 8, 1521-1544. Raphael, J. (1999). The family violence option: An early assessment. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 449-466. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Survey of Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325- 1339. Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman's syndrome. New York: Springer Read More